Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Bernd Fondermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 18:52, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
IMHO this one (use the new structure but move some class from parser to
main) is the worst of the 5 analyzed, but I won't veto it, so if this is
what the majority wants, I'm fine with it.
I don't think that Apache is about majority decisions in the first
place. Majority decisions (votes) are often not including minority
opinions, while finding consensus is about taking every opinion into
acount (known as 'compromising'). If that doesn't work, votes come
into play. (Disclaimer: The readers notion about 'The Apache Way' may
vary.)
i think it's important to let people know about changes like this and
assemble some kind of rough consensus before embarking. i think
there's now a consensus that these changes are broadly an improvement
but that more refinements are possible. let's just apply the proposal
and then start working on the improvements.
MIME4J-51 proposal has already been applied, unfortunately what I
thought was consensus a week ago now seems something invented by me ;-)
My questions to Niklas and Bernd are really to understand if
"refinements" is something that can be done on the refactored tree or if
the consensus is now too far from that and we should better revert it
and start from that.
I'm scared that people think I'm pushing my proposal or pushing my cycle
dependencies issues when I just want to see something done.
I hope Niklas will update us soon, without fears or bad feelings wrt
this thread, and I also hope that someone else with better
communications skills can show what's wrong in the way I try to build
consensus.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
